Solana Company: separate trading and strategic-advisory economics inside one treasury strategy.
Solana Company provides a useful example of why provider roles must be separated before benchmarking price. Its public filings describe a long-duration Trading Advisory Agreement with Pantera and a separate Strategic Advisor Agreement with Pantera and Summer Wisdom.
Trading Advisory Agreement snapshot
| Field | Publicly disclosed term |
|---|---|
| Effective date | September 15, 2025 |
| Provider | Pantera Capital Management LP |
| Role | Manage the investment of substantially all digital assets, digital-asset derivatives, cash and other assets |
| Initial term | 10 years |
| Renewal | Successive one-year periods, subject to mutual agreement |
| Management fee | 1.00% of AUM at $1 billion or less; 0.75% above $1 billion through $5 billion; 0.50% above $5 billion |
| 2025 recognized trading-advisory fees | Approximately $1.1 million disclosed for the year ended December 31, 2025 |
| 2026 current-period fee evidence | For the three and six months ended June 30, 2026, the company disclosed approximately $0.5 million and $1.1 million, respectively, in trading-advisory fees connected to Pantera's management of company AUM. |
A second provider layer sits beside the trading mandate
The Strategic Advisor Agreement engaged Pantera and Summer to provide strategic advice and guidance relating to the company's business, operations, growth initiatives and crypto-sector trends. The disclosed initial term is two years with successive one-year automatic renewals.
The company disclosed base advisor warrants for 5,175,883 shares to Pantera and 2,218,236 shares to Summer, with an exercise price of $0.001 per underlying share, together with a mechanism for additional performance advisor warrants tied to exercise of investor warrants.
The governance map matters because provider and ownership relationships overlap
Solana Company's filings disclose that Pantera and Summer were stockholders and describe Board / executive overlaps involving the two firms. The company also discusses potential conflicts of interest and its related-person transaction review process.
That does not establish that the economics are favorable or unfavorable. It does mean the factual benchmark should keep provider role, ownership, Board relationships, equity-linked compensation and decision rights visible in one source-linked record.
Currentness is not optional
The December 2025 Form 10-K disclosed both agreement families and their economics. The June 30, 2026 Form 10-Q continued to describe the Trading Advisory Agreement and disclosed approximately $0.5 million of trading-advisory fees for the three months ended June 30 and $1.1 million for the six months ended June 30, together with current-period strategic-advisor pass-through expenses. That later fee recognition is a useful currentness control: a live benchmark should distinguish an original contract rate from economics that are still being recognized under the mandate in a later reporting period.
What this case contributes to a DAT provider benchmark
The Solana Company record shows why same-role comparisons matter. A 1% trading-management fee is not directly comparable to strategic-advisory warrants. It also shows why the economic stack should be reconstructed across multiple agreements rather than collapsed into one headline percentage.
Primary public sources
Solana Company 2025 Form 10-K
Solana Company 2026 definitive proxy statement
Solana Company Form 10-Q for June 30, 2026
Related research
Digital asset treasury management agreements →
DAT provider fees →
Related-party DAT agreements →
Digital asset treasury companies →
Public-source factual commercial research only. No legal, fairness, fiduciary or investment opinion, and no recommendation concerning any provider or transaction.